* Muli Ben-Yehuda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > but i still /strongly/ disagree with your attitude that mainline is
> > 'experimental' and hence there's nothing to see here, move over.
>
> We can agree to disagree about how "experimental" mainline should be.
> [...]
there's not much to disagree about. Mainline early bootup _must not
break_, and if it breaks, it must be easy for the tester to figure it
out. Simple as that. If it ever breaks and the user cannot give us other
feedback but: "my laptop hung", we screwed up the process!
once the system has booted up into a minimal state, up to the stage
where say netconsole works, we've got an exponentially increasing number
of measures to find /all the other bugs/. But early bootup is like
sacred. It's not experimental at all. Really. Having a system that
doesnt even boot and gives no feedback at all is an absolute showstopper
and a lost tester to us.
if we need draconian measures such as having two versions of early
bootup code present in the kernel and a runtime boot switch to trigger
between the old-trusted and the new-unknown one [perhaps even
automatically, via the help of Grub] then so it be - but we cannot
tolerate hung bootups.
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
